J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The two plaintiffs, namely, Dr. Shashi Ranjan Gupta and Mr. Sunil Kumar Gupta, have filed the present suit to seek a declaration that defendant No. 1 – M/s Spraylac Paints Corporation – a partnership firm of four partners – who are named in the memo of parties (hereinafter referred to as „Spraylac‟) has impliedly surrendered the lease in respect of premises bearing Municipal No. M-42, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, having an approximate area of 1000 sq. feet on the ground floor and a portion of mezzanine floor with unrestricted use of mezzanine and joint toilets and back door entrance with the other tenants of premises bearing No. M-43 [hereinafter referred to as the, “suit property”] more particularly shown and described in the site plan (Exhibit „PW1/1‟). Alternatively, the plaintiffs have sought a decree for ejectment/recovery of possession against defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit property. The plaintiffs also seek a decree for recovery of money towards unpaid arrears of property tax dues amounting to Rs. 13,97,153/- as on 31.03.2009. A decree of mandatory injunction has also been sought to direct defendant No. 1 to pay to the plaintiffs, or deposit with the court, the refundable security deposit received from defendant No. 2, which would be paid to defendant No. 2 at the time of vacation of the suit property by defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs pray for pendente lite and future use and occupation charges @ Rs. 2.50 lacs per month against defendant No. 2, till such time defendant No. 2 hands over vacant peaceful possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs or enters into a fresh arrangement in respect thereof with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs pray for interest @ 18% per annum on the accrued pendente lite and future use and occupation charges till such time the amount is paid. A prayer for costs has also been made by the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 – Spraylac is a partnership firm having four partners, namely, Mr. Kapil Bhasin, Mr. Rajiv Maira, Mr. Rahul Bhasin and Mr. Rohan Maira. Defendant No. 1 was a lessee of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property, on a monthly rent of Rs. 159.46. Defendant No. 2 – M/s Dominos Pizza India Ltd. („Dominos‟ for short) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiffs state that they permitted defendant No. 1 to induct defendant No. 2 – company as a sub-tenant in respect of the entire suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,22,000/- under an Agreement dated 01.06.1996. Though the plaintiff‟s witness PW1 Dr Shashi Ranjan Gupta has sought to exhibit the said agreement dated 01.06.1996 as Exh. PW1/2 in his examination in chief, only a photocopy of the said agreement has been filed. However, the defendants have not denied the execution of the said agreement in response to para 4 of the plaint – wherein the plaintiffs have averred regarding the execution of the said agreement and annexed the same as Annexure P-2 to the plaint. Even during arguments, the defendants have not questioned the admissibility of the said agreement. Accordingly, the copy of the agreement dated 01.06.1996 (Ex PW1/2) is admissible in evidence.

3. The plaintiffs further state that after inducting defendant No. 2 as a sub tenant in the suit property, a registered lease deed was executed on 24.09.1996 for a term of nine years (Ex.PW1/3). In terms of the lease (Ex.PW1/3) and the agreement dated 01.06.1996 (Ex PW1/2), defendant No. 1 consented to defendant No. 2 paying the lease rental in the ratio of 1/3rd : 2/3rd i.e. 1/3rd of the lease rental was to be paid to the plaintiffs, and 2/3rd was to be paid to defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs submit that this amounts to implied surrender of the formal lease by defendant No. 1, as defendant No. 1 accepted from the plaintiffs/lessors a new lease of the suit property. The plaintiffs aver that in terms of the lease (Ex.PW1/3) and the Agreement dated 01.06.1996 (Ex.PW1/2)